Some Liberals still don't get it

I've not blogged for several months, given the distractions of moving, settling in, and certain other challenging issues, but I cannot resist responding to the following comment by John Ibbitson, who writes about the infighting occurring within the Opposition parties:

And then there are the Liberal MPs who question the wisdom of the proposal to open up every riding to nomination contests. Once MPs are elected, these MPs contend, they should be safe from nomination challenges so that they can focus on representing the party in Ottawa. [my emphasis]

If Ibbitson has portrayed such MPs' complaints accurately, then those MPs represent part of the Liberal problem.

An MP's primary duty is to represent his or her constituents - every one of them, not just the Liberal-friendly. Their primary duty is NOT to represent the party in Ottawa.

Such MPs need an attitude adjustment. Protection of incumbents, for the above purported reason or any other, is anti-democratic. Political parties with ambition to lead a democratic nation should be themselves, at their very foundation, transparently democratic.

Recommend this post

Gotta admit...

This gorgeous, sleek machine makes me drool.

I once saw a stealth fighter up close. Gawd, that's one sexy damn thing!

The F-35 comes with a hefty, apparently morphing and not-to-be-disclosed, price. And 60 of these things have been ordered, without an open and fair bidding process, by the Government of Harper; the latter not to be confused with the Government of Canada, although it freely avails itself of Canadian tax dollars.

So, no thanks. At $6 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion..., the F-35 is a sexy thrill I can live without.

Recommend this post

OK. I Am Officially Excited

On this blog, I've lambasted Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper, Elizabeth May... The only leader of a Canadian federal party I haven't targeted with slings and arrows is Gilles Duceppe and that's only because his party isn't a national one.

Some would say I've been particularly hard on Layton. Until Ignatieff came onto the Canadian political scene, they were likely correct. I went especially hard on Layton because I had so much higher expectations of him and his party.

So knock me down with a feather when along comes a new Layton, who seems to have been invigorated and renewed after recent health challenges. It's as though he acquired a fresh determination "to get things done."

Now...

Might this NDP surge go so far as to deliver one Jack Layton as Leader of the Official Opposition?

Oh..., Please..., Yes!

Recommend this post

Local Conservative Candidate to be No-Show at ACMs

From La Presse:

Portant les couleurs conservatrices dans Nanaimo-Cowichan, John Koury a dit qu'il ne voulait pas prendre part à un débat où la députée et candidate néo-démocrate Jean Crowder amènerait ses partisans. «Je pense qu'il est plus utile de passer mon temps à rencontrer les gens dans leur porte d'entrée de leur maison», a-t-il dit.

Throughout the country, Conservatives are failing to show up at All Candidates Meetings or debates; yet these ACMs provide local citizens the best opportunity to compare candidates and party platforms as interpreted by those candidates. (The best way to assess platforms regardless of candidate interpretation is to visit the various party websites, download the platforms and do an item-by-item comparison yourself.)

The no-shows of 35+ Conservative candidates to ACMs continues a Stephen Harper theme. It is no longer a matter merely of perception: Harper and his brand of the Conservative Party of Canada are afraid of, and have no respect for the majority of Canadians.

Recommend this post

My Fellow Canadians: Where do you get your news?

Do you get paper delivery each morning? Read the national, provincial or local headlines from newspapers at work? Catch up on the news from papers left at Tim Hortons?

Do you instead get your news from the airwaves, via radio? From TV? Or online, from traditional or alternative news magazine and newspaper sites?

Regardless of where you get your news, its delivery begins with the journalist or reporter.

Everything you know about the goings-on in government and politicians' activities during and between election campaigns depends crucially on journalists getting that information for you, unless you do the digging yourself.

When a government or politician severely restricts or bars journalists consistently from doing their work, that government or politician is effectively restricting or barring YOU from getting crucial information.

That information in aggregate ultimately shapes the views of we citizens about the functioning of our government and the activities of our elected politicians. That information together tells us what we must know to make an informed ballot decision at times of elections.

This is why all Canadians should feel deeply disturbed that Steven Harper, as both the current Prime Minister of Canada and now as a federal candidate, consistently restricts and more often bars, both reporters' presence from key events and prohibits their questions.

Contrast this with the full access to media and the public by leaders of the opposition parties.

An attack on freedom of the press is an attack on you and me.

If you don't get that or don't care, then you are responsible for the further erosion of Canada's democracy.

Recommend this post

Well, that was fun! But a fond farewell

Over the past three months, I've written extensively about the BC Liberal leadership race and made public my struggles to make the right choices.

First, I wondered if I should join the BC Liberal Party. No other way existed to vote so directly for British Columbia's 35th premier. Therefore, I decided, Yes, go for it - and signed up for membership on February 2nd.

It felt very strange. Not once during my 40 years of eligibility to vote had I been a member of a Liberal party; in fact, I'd only been a member of any party once before.

Then was the agonizing to and fro decision-making process. I scrutinized policies, public statements, the 'debates', campaign styles, and so on, all the while trying to decide among flavours of vanilla.

Which candidate would be the best both to keep the BC Liberal Party caucus together and to present a serious, viable option for British Columbians in the 2013 general election?

In the end my vote was: 1-George Abbott, 2-Mike de Jong and 3-Kevin Falcon.

Immediately before voting, I thought of switching 1 and 2, for reasons of strategy. Wish I had. But heck, mine was just one vote among approximately 50,000. The switch would have made no difference, except to me. It would have meant greater vote efficiency. Oh, well.

Finally, I did some more agonizing this morning. Then sent off this email:

Dear BC Liberals and the BC Liberal Party:

Since I signed up for membership on February 2nd and throughout the weeks of the BC Liberal leadership race, I have found new friends and thoroughly enjoyed my experience with your Party. I can fault nothing in the way BC Liberals have welcomed me, treated my concerns, or fault the actions of the candidates and, for the most part, those of candidate supporters. It has been an absolutely fantastic few weeks.

I have been a member of a political party only once before. That too, was an experience of mere weeks. It was not nearly so positive. A disagreement concerning actions of the leader prompted my membership cancellation back then.

For this nonconformist thinker, it will only be a matter of time before something similar happens with the BC Liberal Party - more likely concerning policy than (non)actions of Premier-Designate Christy Clark. I am too stubbornly independent not to speak out.

I have always been most effective as a researcher, author, blogger and now Twitter aficionado, when a staunch nonpartisan. I'm just one of those people to whom partisanship does wonky things to her cognitive faculties.

This feels wrenching, but... Please cancel my membership in the BC Liberal Party.

The Party responded quickly. I have returned to my nonpartisan status.

Am feeling sad right now. It was a great ride; and I met online some fine people. Hopefully, we'll stay connected. I'll do my part.

As for that great ride...

I was thrilled most by the a) online b) preferential ballot c) weighted voting system.

FAN... TAS... TIC.

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Party Leadership Race - Done

VOTED!

As a spanking new member of the BC Liberal Party, I have just voted for the party's next leader and this province's 35th Premier. It came down to a matter of choosing among flavours of vanilla, but ultimately the choices were clear given the candidates' proposed policies. Here's how I voted:

1-George Abbott
2-Mike de Jong
3-Kevin Falcon
4-Christy Clark

Lots of people were bowled over by Clark, but I just didn't buy it. She talks a good sound bite, but how surprising is that? For one thing, she has had four years on her own radio show to hone her already good communication skills. Beyond that, Clark had little to offer in the way of substance. For example, her proposal to inject $15 million into the community grants program - which is vital to BC's nonprofit sector - falls far short of the cuts made to the program in 2008. At least Falcon and Abbott agreed to reverse those cuts, an increase of $39 million.

As I explained in my last preferences post, I chose de Jong for 2nd spot for several reasons, including that of strategy. I also think he would make a good Premier. Too bad that he is likely to be the first off the ballot. Strategy would have been simplified for many Liberal voters had one or both Ed Mayne and Moira Stilwell stayed in the race. Then second-place position would have made the race really interesting.

If you are keen to know the outcome of the leadership race as it is announced, you can watch the announcement(s) livestreamed on CBC Vancouver. The outcome of the 1st ballot is to be announced at 6:10 p.m., 2nd ballot at 6:20 p.m. and 3rd (or the 1st or 2nd ballot outcome, if it's the final ballot) at 6:30 p.m.

ETA: Am delighted with this online voting! And the preferential ballot. And, in the case of a BC party leadership race, the weighted vote, one that gives each riding in the province an equal number of votes. In a region such as ours, one-member-one-vote makes no sense for any political party - or other entity - which claims to be representative of the entire province. You simply CANNOT represent an entire province if virtually your entire voting base is in one city or metropolitan area. Good on the BC Liberal Party for having elected - by 1,319 to 23, or 98.3 percent - to bring in the weighted vote. The BC NDP, meanwhile, voted against such a motion and thus chose to keep OMOV.

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Leadership: (Final) Order of preference

The three top issues guiding my decision remain as they have been throughout:

Democratic reform.

• Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments.
     We work, play, live and die in communities. Local elected officials are the closest to the people and best positioned to identify their communities' unique strengths and needs, and to provide the best solutions. Therefore, the greatest political power should rest with local, not the provincial or federal, governments.
• Outreach and meaningful engagement with the public.
• Resumption of powers to MLAs.
• Open government policies.
• Electoral reform.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.

Environmental Stewardship. Greening the economy. This is crucial to supporting our environment and must work in sync with sound taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Given the above, here's how I would rank my choices on the BC Liberal Party's preferential ballot were the selection for leader held today.

1. George Abbott. I've watched Abbott over the course of this leadership race and been impressed by his consultative approach, his quick start in proposing clear, concise policy and his resolve to stick by proposals which fellow politicians may not like - e.g., an investigation into why the government is footing the bill for the Basi-Virk $6M settlement and the insertion in the HST referendum of a question on the carbon tax.
   
   Abbott is determined to consult the people regarding the carbon tax. At first, this concerned me because it put into conflict two of my voting decision criteria: democratic reform and environmental stewardship. However, not only is reform my greater concern but I also trust the people to evaluate their options carefully. Whatever my fellow British Columbians decide, I'll accept.
   
   For awhile, I'd worried that Abbott might take consultation and consensus-building too far, at the expense of making decisions. He has proven that concern to be unfounded.
   
   Abbott has the support of 19 MLAs, one of whom was a fellow candidate in this race - Dr. Moira Stilwell. He also has the support of former leadership candidate Ed Mayne. For these and other reasons, I think Abbott to be the best candidate for today's BC Liberal Party.
   
   
2. Mike de Jong. Like Abbott, de Jong appears genuine in terms of a desire to reach out not just to fellow Liberal members but to the general public. He is listening to the ideas presented to him at his Open Mike sessions. Among the ideas I like: lowering the voting age to 16, a call for an online vote of the HST referendum, support for the carbon tax. De Jong has also publicly acknowledged (CFAX, Jan 20) the important work of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform and his discussion regarding lowering the voting age and increasing citizen participation again reinforces his desire for greater public input and engagement. He's not backing off on the voting age proposal, which had been one of my concerns. (ETA: See this interesting analysis of the options by SFU's Doug McArthur, who supports Mike de Jong.)
   
   I've also placed de Jong in second place for another reason. Christy Clark will likely receive high first-place numbers; if she also receives high second-place numbers, then she will likely be the winner and next Premier. I want Abbott to win; ergo, I place Clark lower than second.
   
   
3. Kevin Falcon. Falcon suggested lowering the HST first to 11 percent then to ten percent. Where does he plan to make up the shortfall? Falcon also has signalled a backtracking on the carbon tax.
   
   In general, some of Falcon's responses or statements expose a defensiveness which is unattractive in a political leader. He tends also to listen through a particular lens to questions posed to him; not just in terms of which questions he chooses to answer but in his responses. In many cases, he is not responding to the question at all, but giving a response in reference to an issue only remotely related to it.
   
   For example, on January 18th, the Vancouver Sun held an online chat session with Falcon. He gave a terrible, defensive nanny-state answer to my municipalities question. This was a case other non-answers to questions put to him by other participants. [ETA Jan 19: Falcon has considerably improved over this performance and now makes concerted efforts to answer direct questions with direct answers. I admire both traits - learning from past experience and being direct with people.]
   
   Like Abbott, Falcon has considerable support from the current Liberal caucus - at last count, 18 19 MLAs. If this were the only consideration, then it could be argued I should be placing him higher. However, ten 11 of those MLAs are cabinet ministers. This raises the question as to how much change, if any, we would see under a Falcon government. The people of British Columbia sent strong signals they want change. To choose Falcon over other choices is tantamount to ignoring those signals and thumbing noses at the people sending them. In Abbott's case, the MLA support represents a broader range of representation regionally, geographically and by voter representation.
   
   
4. Christy Clark. I'd initially been concerned about the cloud over Clark regarding the BC Rail issue; not regarding her guilt or innocence (unlike some, I'd not been impressed by Basi's self-aggrandizing memos), but her refusal to consider a public inquiry regarding the matter. The release of evidence yesterday cleared all elected officials, including Clark, from any wrongdoing. That cloud is now gone.
   
   There are aspects to Clark that I like - her clear desire to listen to the people, her acknowledgement of the tremendous importance the nonprofit sector plays in the health and welfare of people in their communities and her recognition of urgent issues regarding municipalities. Other aspects I find troublesome: her inconsistencies, flip flops (HST) and a disingenuous response regarding what she'd initially proposed about the HST.
   
   A further consideration must be Clark's lack of support from current members of the Liberal caucus. This can be seen either as a positive or a negative; positive, in that it separates Clark from the current administration. But it doesn't separate her from a Campbell government, given her previous roles as a Campbell cabinet minister and Deputy Premier. Therefore, Clark can claim only degrees of separation. The negative to Clark's lack of caucus support signals that these members may know something that I don't, a consideration which I must take seriously.

I am ambivalent about the 3rd- and 4th-place positions and may switch them when it comes time to vote. [And I've already switched them.] However, unless something BIG happens over the next ten days, positions 1 and 2 are locked.

ETA Feb 22: Due to the likelihood Mike de Jong will drop off the ballot after the first round, and given other considerations, when election day arrives I may switch positions 2 and 3. Kevin Falcon supporters, you know what to do. Convince me!

Mike de Jong supporters, give me reasons, beyond those I've outlined, why I should keep your guy in second position.

Recommend this post

Why Not a Metered Internet?

The headline of the Globe and Mail article asks the question, Why Not a Metered Internet?

The argument that follows defends the big telecoms in terms of market forces: for example, the cost of infrastructure building.

Here's a different answer to the question: with a metered Internet we would have another case of them that haves and them that don't.

We already have a growing economic inequality gap. With Internet metering, we would have an associated inequality gap in terms of fundamental communications access.

An inequality gap already exists with respect to telephony. The lowest income households haven't room in their budgets to acquire that all-important telephone number. They've not a telephone or cell phone or other mobile device to which such a number could be attached. For those households that have a desktop computer with Skype installed, they cannot make full use of the VOIP provider's services or those offered by similar providers. Such services would provide them with an online number (just like a phone number), thus allowing them to receive incoming telephone calls to their computer.

Why can customers in Canada - unlike those in most of the developed world - not obtain online numbers?

Again, a CRTC decision lies at the heart of the matter.

Access to incoming phone calls. Access to the full services the Internet can provide. In both cases, it's about communication with one's friends, family and community; access to one's regional district, provincial or territorial government and services; access to the federal government and services; access to information regarding elections, parties and candidates; access to news and information.... It's about access to democracy.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

CRTC, UBB and a Response from my MP

Am glad the CRTC has been ordered to review (read: 'reverse') its decision on usage-based Internet billing. But I won't be happy until the CRTC has gone the way of the dinosaurs, just like the dinosaurs its morphed mandate has been so busy protecting.

That aside, I wanted to share this great letter I received from my MP, NDP Jean Crowder, written in response to my terse email regarding the CRTC's UBB decision:

Thank you for writing to me about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision to allow usage based Internet billing. Put simply, this issue has been brewing for a long time. Canadians are paying more and more for less and less service.

The New Democrats have been pushing for the last number of years for a coherent digital innovation policy. The government has preferred to let the "market" make the decisions about access, speed and pricing for internet use. The problem is that we don't have an open, competitive market. We have a small oligarchy of vertically-integrated companies that control virtually every aspect of consumer-media use. The opportunities for price gouging and anti-competitive practices are obvious.

We welcome the Industry Minister's sudden change of heart on usage-based internet billing. As my colleague, Charlie Angus pointed out in the House of Commons, "Canada used to be a world leader in terms of internet access and speed. Under this government, we've fallen behind. If the CRTC's decision on usage-based billing is not overturned, Canada is in danger of becoming a digital backwater."

While the Minister of Industry has said he will review the usage-based billing decision, more action is needed to protect consumers who are already being hit with capped internet service. The large internet service providers and broadcast entities restrict competition by limiting access to their networks - not only to internet users but to their competitors as well.

I appreciate you taking the time let your views be known. It helps me in my work as a Member of Parliament. The New Democratic Party will continue to push for better access and digital rights for Canadians.

Sincerely,
Jean Crowder, MP Nanaimo-Cowichan
101-126 Ingram St., Duncan, BC, V9L 1P1
www.jeancrowder.ca

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Leadership - Community Gaming Grants

Non profits throughout British Columbia rely on the province's Community Gaming Grants program for their funding. For many, it's their sole source of desperately needed dollars.

The important work that these non profits do toward addressing social needs in their communities cannot be overstated. They deliver far more for the tax dollars they receive than do the majority of government agencies.*

Three BC Liberal leadership candidates have proposed changes to the Community Grants program. Christy Clark would boost the current money allotted ($120 million) by 12.5 percent, or $15 million. Kevin Falcon has just announced increasing the program to $159 million, a 32.5 percent jump.

The third proposal, made by leadership hopeful Ed Mayne, would see the "politically-motivated" Community Grants program junked entirely. In its place, he proposes that two percent of the HST go directly to municipalities.

By a long way, I prefer Mayne's proposal. It gives communities the autonomy and freedom to address their own needs, build on their own strengths and devise their own solutions. It also eliminates the perpetual problem of non-profits having to fit their funding needs, and hence their community needs, to the demands and economic needs of a far-off funder. By 'far-off', I mean in all of these senses: geographical distance, ideological distance and hierarchical distance.

*One such non-profit is the internally-recognized Providence Farm, right here in the Cowichan Valley. Go take a look; it's truly a community wonder.

Recommend this post

In case you missed it...

You may have missed the news hidden in an ETA at the bottom of my post on the BC Liberal Party's weighted vote proposal. I suppose it deserves a post of its own:

... drum roll please ...

I. Am. Now ...

a Liberal.

A BC Liberal, of the BC Liberal Party.

Eeeekkkk!

Unlike with a BC NDP membership, which automatically and without choice to opt out, makes one a member of the federal NDP, membership in the BC Liberal Party does not make one a member of the federal party that shares part of its name. Thank goodness.

It just seemed too good a deal to pass up, the one chance in generations to directly select a Premier. With Gordon Campbell's resignation, a new leader of the BC Liberal Party will be selected on February 26th. The next legislated general election isn't scheduled until May 2013.

Any British Columbian over 14 years of age may vote for the next leader of the BCLP, provided they have signed up for membership by 5:00 p.m. February 4th. I urge them to do so.

It is estimated that the total membership will reach 70,000. Therefore, I have a one in 70,000 chance of affecting the vote for Premier. That beats the one in 3.5 million chance in a general election.

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Party Weighted Vote Proposal

The BC Liberal Party on February 12th will decide whether to adopt the weighted vote or to retain the current one-member-one-vote policy. It will take a two-thirds majority for the motion on the weighted vote to pass.

Weighting votes, goes the reasoning, would be more inclusive of less populated regions and smaller constituency associations.

As the situation currently stands, in terms of vote concentration the BC Liberal Party truly only represents a handful of ridings, all in the lower Mainland. And now, during the current leadership race (and the last one that elected Gordon Campbell), thousands of new members are being signed up in single ridings, three in Surrey alone. Certain campaigns are rumoured to be virtually ignoring other ridings.

Additional rumour suggests a movement afoot to nix the weighted vote, thus favouring those leadership campaigns that have been most active in bulk membership drives. That all six candidates have declared support for the change has not stopped the seeming dirty tricks, including delegate stacking.

But back to the weighted vote... Under this proposal, each of the 85 BC Liberal constituency associations (CA) would receive a value of 100 points. Therefore, the vote of a member whose CA has 100 members would be valued at 1 point, a CA with 500 members would award each vote a value of 1/5 point and a CA with only 20 members would value each vote at 5 points.

In this way, the voting interests of each region of the province is equally represented in the Party.

In principle, one-member-one-vote appears to be the most democratic. However, it appears less so when you consider the following situation in which one riding has five members, the other 500:

Each of the one out of five members in the smaller CA must work harder to represent the BC Liberal Party in their riding. Such is not the case with one out of 500 members. In other words, members in low-member CAs must pull more weight.

Should the votes of members in such CAs count for less, or not at all? Because that is what results under the current OMOV system; three or four ridings ultimately determine the outcome.

The bottom-line choice for Party members: for the BCLP to be, in terms of actual vote representation, the 'Surrey Liberal Party' or that it live up to its name and represent the voting interests of members throughout the province.

ETA: Have just signed up for membership (eek!) because there's no way I want to miss the opportunity of being 1 out of 70,000 90,000 who will choose the next Premier of this province. How long I'll remain a member is another issue. I like being a non-partisan, so we'll see.

ETA2: The BCLP web form, like 99 out of 100 web forms, includes a mandatory phone field. To get the form to go through I had to use an obviously fake number. Damned annoying.

ETA Feb 12: The weighted vote was chosen by an overwhelming majority! By 1,319 to 23 or 98.3 per cent. Well done, delegates!

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Leadership Candidate George Abbott

At one time, I worried that BC Liberal leadership candidate George Abbott's conciliatory positioning might impede a government lead by him from getting much done. The concern centred around a seeming lack of both opportunities for decision- and policy-making, and of timelines with respect to such policy creation and policy outcomes.

I've begun to change my mind.

First was Abbott's early proposal to add a question to the HST referendum about the continuation of carbon tax hikes following the hikes already scheduled. Abbott says he will abide by the people's decision on both the HST and carbon tax.

The latter puts me in conflict with two of the three priority issues that guide my voting preference, which I've listed elsewhere and repeat here:

Democratic reform.

• Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments.
     We work, play, live and die in communities. Local elected officials are the closest to the people and best positioned to identify their communities' unique strengths and needs, and to provide the best solutions. Therefore, the greatest political power should rest with local, not the provincial or federal, governments.
• Outreach and meaningful engagement with the public.
• Resumption of powers to MLAs.
• Open government policies.
• Electoral reform.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.

Environmental Stewardship. Greening the economy. This is crucial to supporting our environment and must work in sync with sound taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Regarding Abbott's carbon tax referendum question, I worry about its result, that British Columbians will turn down future hikes. But I worry more about lack of democratic process and meaningful consultation with the public. Since the latter is dominant for me, I support Abbott's carbon tax referendum proposal.

In like theme, I support Abbott's proposal to have the people - through a meaningful process of dialogue among non-profits, aboriginal communities, business, the immigrant services sector and the BC Government - create a child poverty policy with legislated reduction targets five years and ten years out.

"The participants themselves would be tasked to define the problem and design a set of solutions together through ongoing dialogue, and also submit to taking action as partners to support the solution in recognition that no single group alone can solve the problem," says Abbott's news release.

With this and other concrete proposals that combine meaningful public consultation with policy creation, George Abbott comes across as a solid candidate for the BC Liberal leadership. It doesn't hurt that

• he has 16 MLAs who support his candidacy;
• he stands second in public opinion only to Christy Clark - who has the support of one MLA;
• another frontrunner, Kevin Falcon, has dropped like a stone in those same public opinion polls (could it be all those business endorsements?); and
• the BC NDP prefers anyone but Abbott as leader of the BC Liberals.

More and more George Abbott looks like the candidate to beat.

ETA Jan 30: Dirty tricks may beat Abbott's otherwise excellent odds. Despite all leadership candidates declaring support for the weighted vote - each riding's constituency association would get 100 points -, word is that the Christy Clark, Mike de Jong and Kevin Falcon campaigns have all been working to ensure enough delegates to vote in their chosen one's favour; i.e., against the measure. And all three campaigns have been signing up 1000s of new memberships in four key ridings in the lower mainland. Those four ridings could alone determine who becomes leader of the BC Liberals; in effect, making the BC Liberal Party even more a regional, not a provincial, party.

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Leadership Candidate Christy Clark

A dear friend who died just over a year ago spent her last decade, all the while coping through severe illness, trying to get community groups and non-profits recognized by governments for the beyond-their-weight work that they do for communities. Ronnie Phipps would have been thrilled to see a leadership candidate make a proposal such as this.

Christy Clark: "If elected premier, I want to hold a special summit with non-profits, charities and government to see if we can construct a made-in BC model for public and non-profit partnerships."

The expansion of non-profits, under Clark's vision, would follow four principles:

• Transparent selection: organizations would clearly know how funding will be allocated and the criteria for selection
• Encourage: motivate groups and people to get involved
• Resources: Provide predictable funding and provide knowledge transfer from the B.C. Public Service to non-profits [my emphasis]
• Measurability: Reward excellence and identify weaknesses in public and non-profit delivery of services.

"This campaign is about putting families first and strong communities, with vibrant non-profit groups that contribute so much, are a key part of that,” says Clark. “It's time we look at taking the work that has been done and raising it to the next level. Let's engage non-profits, let's engage British Columbians and find a way to build a non-profit and public partnership that strengthens communities."

That the proposal comes from a BC Liberal who currently runs in first place in public opinion polls for that party's leadership race would have astounded my friend Ronnie. The only thing she would have picked at, and which immediately got my attention, is the phrasing I highlighted in the quote. I made my objection public in a couple of tweets.

1: "provide knowledge transfer from the BC Pub Serv 2 nonprofits" http://bit.ly/i8EMOb AND OTHER WAY ROUND! NPs have tremendous knowledge

2: TO @christyclark4bc: PLS rephrase 'provide knowledge transfer from the BCPS 2 NPs' => 'between BCPS and NPs' http://bit.ly/i8EMOb.

In other words, I am suggesting point three be changed from:

Provide predictable funding and provide knowledge transfer from the B.C. Public Service to non-profits

to:

Provide predictable funding and provide knowledge transfer between the B.C. Public Service and non-profits

It's a change of just two words, yet they make a crucial difference in the tone and meaning of the message.

I hope the phrasing gets changed. As is, it's disrespectful of non-profits. It fails to acknowledge the tremendous knowledge and expertise they have which, if heeded, would benefit the people in government who work to serve the public interest. The knowledge transfer shouldn't be just one-way.

Beyond that objection, I give a big thumbs-up to Christy Clark. This proposal, together with others Clark has made concerning community groups and the challenges to local governments is why I currently have her in top spot on my list of preferences for the next leader of the BC Liberals.

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Leadership: Order of preference 2

[UPDATED Jan 20, 10:00 a.m.]

My three top issues that will guide my decision remain as before:

Democratic reform. Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments. This is the key issue for me. We work, play, live and die in communities. Local elected officials are the closest to the people and best positioned to identify their communities' unique strengths and needs; and to provide the best solutions. Therefore, the greatest political power should rest with local - not provincial, not federal - governments.

Further democratic reforms I'd like to see: outreach and meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, open government, electoral reform.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.

Climate change. Greening the economy which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Given the dominant themes stated above, of the realistic contenders for the BC Liberal leadership race the following is my current order of preference. This new list acknowledges that Christy Clark, George Abbott and Kevin Falcon are thought by Liberals to be the frontrunners; and that Mike de Jong, while currently considered by as being in fourth place could be, given the positive reception he has been getting, a challenger on the second ballot. Placing Moira Stilwell or Ed Mayne in any position other than fifth or sixth is an exercise in futility, so I've simply dropped them off my preference list.

1. Christy Clark. Over the past couple of weeks, Clark's public messaging and videos have suggested a lack of vision (see this, for example: nice music, nice ambience, no policy statement). As I write this, the first all candidates meeting has just completed. Clark continued her "we must listen to the people" mantra almost ad nauseum. My advice to the candidate: Be careful not to portray yourself in your public appearances as merely interested in consultation; that can suggest that as Premier you could be indecisive.
   
   At the same event Clark fortunately did announce a major policy proposal, the creation of an Office of the Municipal Auditor General.
   

   Over the last several years, as the economy has shifted, municipalities have struggled to determine how to fund services and deal with the shifting of responsibilities from senior levels of governments. This new office would look at the competition between commercial, industrial and residential taxation, the role local government is playing and find ways to make sure the taxpayer is being well-served.... [T]his new office would be able to select its own areas for review, react to requests from municipalities and look at suggestions from the public.

   Couple this with Clark's call for a Community Gaming Grants review and an initial 12.5 percent increase to the program, of the major contenders Clark stands first in terms of policy acknowledgements of the importance of communities and local governments. Therefore, I currently place her first in this list.
   
   
2. Mike de Jong. de Jong appears to be the most real in terms of outreach, in trying to engage not just Liberals but the general public. He truly appears to be listening to the ideas presented to him at his Open Mike sessions. Among those I like: lowering the voting age to 16, a call for an online vote of the HST referendum, support for the carbon tax.
   
   ETA Jan 20 10:00 a.m.: Just now on CFAX, I liked de Jong's nod to the Citizens' Assembly and his discussion regarding lowering the voting age and increasing citizen participation generally. He's not backing off on the voting age proposal, which had been a concern of mine. Still haven't heard de Jong say anything about municipalities.
   
   
3. George Abbott. As the campaign has proceeded, I've been less enchanted with Abbott. It's nothing I can put my finger on; more that his conciliatory positioning makes me question whether much would get done under his leadership. Abbott isn't short on policy, for which I give him credit, but can he make the hard decisions when necessary?
   
   
4. Kevin Falcon. Falcon suggested lowering the HST first to 11 percent then to ten percent. Where does he plan to make up the shortfall? Falcon also has signalled a backtracking on the carbon tax.
   
   In general, some of Falcon's responses or statements expose a defensiveness which is unattractive in a political leader. He tends also to listen through a particular lens to questions posed to him; not just in terms of which questions he chooses to answer but in his responses. In many cases, he is not responding to the question at all, but giving a response in reference to an issue only remotely related to it.
   
   ETA Jan 18, 12:30p: For example, just now in the Vancouver Sun online chat session, Falcon gave a terrible, defensive nanny-state answer to my municipalities question. This was a case (of several) of not answering the question put to him:
   
   What policy, if any, would your government implement in support of increasing the power (areas of responsibility) to, and autonomy of funding for municipalities?
   
   Regarding funding, 'autonomy' was a key word. Falcon's answer began with a defence a) against claims, which the question didn't make, that the provincial government had continued to download responsibilities to local governments while b) reducing their provincial funding. Provincial funding wasn't part of the question either; autonomy of funding was.

Recommend this post

BC NDP Leadership: Order of preference

Finally! More, though not all expected, contenders for leadership of the BC NDP have entered the race.

Adrian Dix isn't expected to do so until next week. That is past the due date (January 17th) for new members whose votes can affect the leadership race.

That January 17th deadline irks me to no end. It has affected my decision with respect to which of the two parties I will sign up for membership in order to cast a vote for its leader. My preference would have been the NDP. However, the deadline has given me and other reflective British Columbians no time to assess currently absent detailed policy or leadership styles; whereas the longer leadership period of the Liberals has. Ergo, unless a scientific miracle happens, I'll be signing up for a Liberal membership.¹

As with the selection of leader of the BC Liberals, how NDP candidates stand on the following three issues will shape my decision:

Democratic reform. Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments (candidates are ignoring this, yet it's the most crucial of democratic reforms), outreach and meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, open government, electoral reform.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes, ultimately to zero. The latter punish enterprising activity, behaviour that should be encouraged. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class. (I also favour the elimination of all corporate taxes provided that corporations no longer have person status; if they continue to be deemed in law as persons, then they can damn well pay income taxes like the rest of us.)

Climate change. Greening the economy, which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Given the dominant themes stated above and the scant information presently available (two candidates haven't yet websites), of the six current and expected contenders for the BC NDP leadership race, this is my present order of preference. I admit doing a dice throw for most. Absent policy, detailed or otherwise, doesn't help.

1. John Horgan. He has the nicest website of all candidates, of either party. That visual communication appears to be part of an overall communications strategy, with good engagement by Horgan and his team on Twitter and Facebook. Would be nice to have an Islander heading the party.
   ETA Jan 15 8:15a: In the Globe and Mail, Horgan is described as "a Roy Romanow kind of New Democrat." I'd take that as a compliment, John. In fact, it's enough for me to move you up to 1st place and to move Larsen down to your old 3rd place spot.
2. Mike Farnworth. His leadership announcement contained the most substance. I like the suggestion of using carbon tax to fund public transportation alternatives, his emphasis on sustainability (does he support Sustainable BC?). The call for a commission on education sounds nice and is getting a lot of play in the media. However, as with all commissions, committees, consultations, town halls, inquiries... unless their recommendations are given teeth, they are meaningless.
3. Dana Larsen. I've a soft spot for rebels, nonconformists and people who push the status quo. I also like Larsen's platform. (OK, it's more that he has one.)
4. Nicholas Simons. Not enough information to make a judgement.
5. Harry Lali. Hasn't a website, so I've no idea what he stands for.
6. Adrian Dix. Hasn't yet entered the race.

¹That I'll soon become a big 'L' liberal has me shaking my head. Don't recall ever voting Liberal, federally or provincially, during my 40 years as an eligible and dedicated voter; I've voted Progressive Conservative, NDP, Independent or Green. But this is an important opportunity to participate, directly, in choosing the next Premier of this province. It's an opportunity I'm not going to pass up. Who will I vote for? Don't know yet. Stay tuned!

Recommend this post

Corporate Taxes

The issue of corporate taxes comes down to a single straightforward principle for me:

Remove person status from corporations; then, and only then can you, and should you, remove corporate taxes.

If you do not remove corporate person status, then corporations can pay income tax like the rest of we persons.

Some people argue against corporate taxes on the basis that shareholders already pay income tax.

That argument misses the point. Corporations have been deemed in law to be entities separate from their shareholders. With such status come certain rights and obligations. You can't and shouldn't have it both ways.

I see this as a justice or equity issue. The continuation of person status to corporations together with the simultaneous reduction of their income taxes is a form of corporate welfare and bailout.

Remove person status from corporations. Then I'll wholeheartedly support outright elimination of corporate taxes.

Recommend this post

It's Baaaaaack!

Just like I said last time, the per-vote subsidy will be in Harper's next election platform - and likely in the upcoming budget. See around the 10-minute mark.

Recommend this post

Anyone Can Grow Shit Themselves

Well, not quite anyone. If you've not a patch of land or a balcony or suitable space indoors for growing pots (not to mention the required additional equipment), then you're out of luck.

But otherwise, yea, anyone can grow shit themselves, as Ms Broke-Ass Grouch makes so eloquently clear in this fantastic article.

Here's a snippet:

Listen up, locavores, opportunivores, dumpster-diving fermentation fetishists, and Dave Matthews Band fans: A great many of us live by the same ecologically sound principles that you do. We, however, are not doing so because we nurture an abiding desire to "create choices" for ourselves or to "live intentionally." We don't have any more than a passing interest in "sustaining biodiversity." We are known as poor people.

Now go ahead, read the rest.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

BCNDP New Member Deadline Dissuades New Members

Any non-members of the BC NDP who want to have a say on the party's new leader - who will be elected April 17th - must sign up for membership in the party by January 17th.

So far, the only declared "heavy-hitter" in the leadership race (according to insiders) has been John Horgan, who announced his intention January 10th. Other 'heavy hitters' rumoured to enter but yet to declare are Adrian Dix and Mike Farnworth. (Just caught on Twitter: Farnworth is set to announce tomorrow.)

From the perspective of seriously interested nonpartisans, undecideds, dissatisfied members of other parties, and so on, the timing for membership sign-up to the BC NDP is abysmal.

All these would have to happen before I, for example, took the step and became a party member:

1. All men and women who had intended to declare for leader had done so
2. All leadership contenders had set out, in clear form, their proposed policies
3. All leadership contenders would have debated one another at least twice; i.e., at All Candidates Meetings
4. All leadership contenders would have had reasonable time to respond to questions I (and others) had asked to them
5. Given all the above, I'd have had time to reflect

The timing of the new membership deadline makes all but #1 impossible and #2 unlikely. One can only assume that the BC NDP does not want new blood or fresh ideas, that it does not want new people who would make decisions on selection of a leader or, for that matter, selection of a party for membership, so seriously and thoughtfully.

Therefore, I suppose that people such as myself are left to change the channel back to the leadership race of the BC Liberals. As for the NDP, whoever the current membership of the party choose, it is likely that he or she, together with the current provincial council, will conduct business pretty much as usual.

ETA: This man's run for the BC NDP leadership would seriously interest me.

Recommend this post

Dinner is Nearly on the Table

Last week I received a query from a pregnant woman who saw a documentary called ' Earthlings'. The video upset her so much that she asked how to embrace a vegan diet.

Her request got me to thinking that others would benefit after viewing this. It may influence them into doing some research. It may aid them in realizing that there IS another way to live respectfully, and in harmony, with all creatures on our little blue planet.

I challenge all carnivores/omnivores to watch the video, in it's un-pretty, cruel, factual, and appetite killing entirety.

Now go eat your dinner.

Recommend this post

UPDATE Jan 4/11: BC Liberal Leadership - Order of preference

[See ETAs below]

It's early days yet in the BC Liberal leadership race, but it appears there will be only the five contenders who have already declared - although a BC Liberal in good standing could run for leader as late as 13 days before the leadership vote. [See ETAs Dec 21 2:40 p.m., Jan 4 10:15 a.m.]

When evaluating the possibility of a new government, these issues rank as the top three for me:

Democratic reform. Outreach, meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, openness and transparency, electoral reform, support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour. A gradual reduction of earnings taxes, which punish enterprising activity, behaviour that should be encouraged. I favour the HST, the carbon tax and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.

Climate change. Greening the economy, which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Of the five contenders for the BC Liberal leadership race, this is my current¹ order of preference given the dominant themes stated above:

1. George Abbott. Said to be the least polarizing of the candidates for Liberals, Abbott is aligned with the old guard. He and Kevin Falcon have been playing catch-up in terms of who can get the most endorsements from Liberal MLAs and members of the current Liberal cabinet. Last I checked they were tied at 12 each. What I like about Abbott: his ability to bring opposing sides together, his support for the carbon tax, the HST and lowering the voting age to 16. Against: his Falcon-like response to cap 'n trade: best to wait for more partners. [See ETAs Dec 18 5:00 p.m., Jan 4 10:15 a.m.]
2. Mike de Jong. de Jong appears to be the most real in terms of outreach, in trying to engage not just Liberals but the general public. He truly appears to be listening to the ideas presented to him at his Open Mike sessions. Among those I like: lowering the voting age to 16, a call for an online vote of the HST referendum, support for the carbon tax. I've yet to get an answer from de Jong about cap 'n trade and I'm disappointed in his early lack of vocal support for and pessimistic messaging re the HST. In my view, a defeat of the HST in the referendum is not a given. Opinion appears to be changing, more British Columbians are sitting on the fence hoping for more information about the tax, and the anti-HST commitment has lowered in numbers. [See ETA Jan 4 10:15 a.m.]
3. Kevin Falcon. Falcon suggested lowering the HST first to 11 percent then to ten percent. So far there has been no proposal for making up the shortfall. Falcon also is backtracking on the carbon tax and cap 'n trade in tune with demands from big industry, including oil and mining. [See ETAs: Dec 18 5:00 p.m., Dec 21 11:00 a.m.]
4. Christy Clark. A huge demerit for Clark is the secrecy regarding her possible role in the sale of BC Rail, otherwise I might have ranked her #1 or #2. A huge plus for Clark: She was a late but strong vocal proponent of BC-STV, the new, elegant electoral system that was defeated by referendum in 2009. Other points in Clark's favour: support for the HST, the carbon tax and lowering the voting age. Like Stilwell and de Jong, Clark has avoided answering the cap 'n trade question. [See ETAs: Dec 18 4:00 p.m., Dec 21 11:00 a.m.]
5. Dr. Moira Stilwell. Stilwell has been the most direct in answering my questions, for which I give her mucho kudos. She supports the HST and the carbon tax. Her answers so far waffle or are lacking regarding cap 'n trade and lowering the voting age. [See ETAs Dec 18 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Dec 21 11:00 a.m.]
6. ETA Jan 4 10:15 a.m. - Ed Mayne. New entrant to the race. Not enough information yet to assess him as Liberal leader or Premier. One thing I like is his support for the HST referendum to remain in September. British Columbians could need time to assess the impact of removing the HST and to make an informed decision.

Supporters of the lower-ranked candidates will work to poke holes in this ranking. That's fine; fire away on Twitter.

To some candidates, my opinion won't matter. I am a non-partisan and hence have no vote in electing the leader of the BC Liberal Party and this province's next Premier.

To other candidates, the smart ones, my opinion and that of other members of the voting public, will matter.

In the end, it is not just about winning the leadership of a given political party. It is about winning over the majority of British Columbians.

¹By "current" I mean as of 11:00 a.m. December 18 2010. That is, "subject to change without notice." I'll be adding ETAs as required to explain inevitable shifting of ranks.

--

ETA Dec 18 12:05 p.m.: Latest response from Stilwell: on #capntrade It's a great idea, but we need to find more partners for it to actually work well. My reply: Unless 1 govt starts cap 'n trade, wht's incentive 4 others? Who takes lead in Cda? Relevant: http://bit.ly/h2Ie4g. Subsequent Twitter conversation. Still waiting for response on voting age. In the meantime, Stilwell is still ranked #2.

ETA Dec 18 4:00 p.m.: First change! The rankings of #2 and #3 have switched.

Christy Clark came out early in favour of Mike de Jong's proposal to change the voting age to 16, one of the important facets in a democratic reform package. I've heard back from Stilwell regarding both cap 'n trade and the voting age. Regarding the latter, Stilwell wants to hear from the public; which plays right into the status quo and the vested interests that will fight to keep the electoral system (not to mention party discipline) as is.

Stilwell's answer on voting age is as much a waffle as any other. If you can be elected leader of your party by votes from 14-year-olds (yes, the BC Liberal Party Constitution permits this), then you're a hypocrite not to defend a policy position that would allow 16-year-olds to vote in provincial elections.

ETA Dec 18 5:00 p.m.: My foggy brain recalls a tweet from someone reporting on George Abbott's telephone town hall yesterday. Apparently, he was asked if he supported Mike de Jong's proposal to lower the voting age to 16. He said Yes. Trying to find that tweet or get other confirmation. [Dec 21: Got it - see last paragraph]

Spotted a rumour on Twitter that Falcon also supports lowering the voting age. Trying to get confirmation on that also. [Dec 21: Got it] If true, then Stilwell stands alone.

ETA Dec 21 10:00 a.m.: Yesterday, Falcon introduced a plan for BC's northern regions. Kudos not so much for the plan - that's up to northerners to approve -, but for its specificity. As far as I've been able to track, no other candidate has presented a (detailed) plan for northern BC. Then today, the Falcon team announced this. Gotta admit that's pretty cool and could be part of coming changes to engage the public in political decisions.

Clark has been and continues to suggest she'd call a snap election. From the perspective of the electorate, it's a bad idea and reeks of political opportunism. Voters need time to assess the new Premier and his/her style of governance. We'd also benefit from observing the NDP Official Opposition under its new leader. The two years until the next scheduled election would be ideal. Clark also so far has come out with no policy. In this video, she gives a general discussion regarding fiscal responsibility; says her government would strike up an "economic advisory panel" and only then decide on a taxation policy. Voters are to elect a Clark-led Liberal government on this basis? That she'll strike up an advisory council on monetary issues? Not good enough.

Given i) the latest Falcon announcements and the additions to the ETA of Dec 18 5:00 p.m. regarding Falcon, and ii) the issues with the Clark campaign, rankings have changed. Clark has fallen from 2nd to 4th and Stilwell from 4th to 5th. Abbott and Falcon have moved up, from 3rd to 2nd and from 5th to 3rd place, respectively.

ETA Dec 21 2:40 p.m.: Interesting development yesterday re entrants to race. Parksville mayor "seriously considering" entering and filed letter of intent to party last Thursday.

ETA Jan 4 10:15 a.m.: Just finished watching George Abbott's announcement. "It's as much about the how as the what." Was impressed with Abbott's passion (!) about open government and greater involvement by, and better representation of British Columbians. Among the policies Abbott proposes is including a vote on the carbon tax along with the HST referendum. I think that's fair, given how the scheduled hikes in the tax will impact British Columbians differently. I favour the carbon tax and its continuation as previously set. I also favour more involvement by the people in the determination of such policy. Was impressed sufficiently and have been less impressed by Mike de Jong lately, that I've moved Abbott to the number #1 spot.

Am waiting for an email response to this question, which I asked via Twitter: Munis must chg laws, allow not public hsg but low-cost hsg dev. How wld u persuade? http://bit.ly/gkBmU.

Abbott team has responded quickly to my reminder. I grant that today is a busy day and understand the delay, appreciate response.

Ed Mayne, now former mayor of Parksville, has entered the race. See list above.

Recommend this post